Any connections between Abramoff and democrats?

[RedEarth]

Does anyone have any links showing where Abramoff has given money to democrats? It is my understanding, there haven't been any democrats who have received money directly from Abramoff. From what I remember, Harry Reid got donations from Indian tribes, however, these were tribes that had given cash to his campaign long before Abramoff came on the scene.

I'm having a discussion with a winger and want to be sure of the facts........thanks


Thanks to everyone for the quick response....good links and great information.....thanks again!

[fooj]

1. NO CONNECTION!

It's a Republican OOPSY!! Exclusively. I wish I had the links...might want to check over at KO's...they had it up for a long time. Peace.

[IsItJustMe]

2. The simple answer. NO

[blm]

3. When Abramoff came on the scene, the Tribe donations were in amounts lower

than they had been before Abramoff.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. Not any serious ones.

I'm sure that he's made some contact and such with Democrats. Being a lobbyist and all, you never JUST play one side of the fence. But he's certainly never been in bed with any of our guys, so to speak.

[AndyA]

5. That's my understanding as well

Dems may have gotten money from parties with ties to Abramoff, but none came directly from Abramoff, and it doesn't seem to have been given with the same strings attached as the money given to Repugs did.

[John Q. Citizen]

Nope. Abramoff was as partisan as they come. He got the tribes to

give less to the Dems and more to the Repos.

[enid602]

6. Abramoff

I think the lack of any serious ties between Abramoff and the Dems will provide some serious problems for the right wing religious, who have been flexing their muscle a lot the last few weeks. How will they explain Abramoff to their flocks?

[BlooInBloo]

7. I got none, because there are none....

What wingers say is the following:

"Well, indians gave money to Abramoff, and they also gave money to Democrats. So Democrats are connected to Abramoff."

Seriously. They really say that. I'm not kidding.

It's exactly the same logic as:

"Well Abramoff breathes oxygen, and Democrats also breathe oxygen. So Democrats are connected to Abramoff."

It kinda clarifies how we got an idiot in the White House, doesn't it?

[jedicord]

17. And I'm related to Kevin Bacon.

7 Degrees of Separation and all that...:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

22. LOL - yup!

[Vincardog]

8. Yes their is a connection. Those tribes that gave to Democratic candidate

and office holders gave less after they signed up with mr. Abramoff.
Mr. Abramoff never gave or directed ANY money to Democrats.

[BlooInBloo]

20. I hope you mean that sarcastically.

Because that "connection" is exactly the same kind of connection Abramoff and Democrats have in virtue of the fact that they both breathe oxygen.

[Vincardog]

26. I am not being sarcastic it is the same as both being oxygen breathers

only to the extent that after Abramoff the Democrats had less oxygen to breath.

[JackBeck]

9. Not only did these tribes give Reid money before Abramoff,

But after Abramoff came into the picture, the money given to Democrats from these tribes decreased.

[Richardo]

10. Nope. DeLay saw to that; and now that insulation is biting them in the ass

:rofl:

[wryter2000]

14. I love that one, too

Chances are they could have roped some Dems in if they'd wanted to. I'm sure they wished they had now.

:rofl:

[wryter2000]

11. NO LINKS TO DEMOCRATS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2401380

Furthermore, in most cases, donations to Democrats decreased after Abramoff took a tribe on as a client.

[RedEarth]

23. Thanks....that's the link I needed.........

[Th1onein]

12. Someone took a dose of Repub talking points

This is one of their favorite talking points when it comes to the Abramoff scandal. "The Democrats did it, too!" The Democrats had nothing whatsoever to do with Abramoff. Period. The way they like to couch it is this: "Abramoff-linked money" Well, Abramoff linked money can be money he paid to the WalMart, which you received back in change for a twenty, too. The money given to the Democrats from the Indian tribes had NOTHING to do with Abramoff, period.

[CottonBear]

13. No. no, no, no, no. Did I say no? Yep. The answer is no. :) n/t

[MADem]

15. Funny how the K STREET Project became the K-9 project!!

It turned into a rabid Doberman, and bit the GOP in the ass!!!

Bwahahahahahahahaha!!! Heh, heh....!

[Sammy Pepys]

16. Easy way to check

www.opensecrets.org

[Greeby]

18. Abramoff would sooner set himself on fire than give money to a Democrat

When he was with the College Republicans in the 70's, they would re-eneact scenes from the movie "Patton" and substitute the word "Nazi" for "liberal". Dumb, sick bastards :eyes:

[dorkulon]

19. a good article which settled this for me.

http://buffalobeast.com/92/balance.htm

The relevant passage:

--snip--

It is true that tribes affiliated with Abramoff have given money to Democrats, just as tribes not connected to Abramoff did. But a new study gives the lie to allegations that Abramoff directed such donations. The study, done by nonpartisan research firm Dwight L. Morris and Associates and commissioned by the American Prospect, shows that tribes’ donations to Democrats decreased significantly after Abramoff took them on as clients, while, as the Prospect’s Greg Sargent writes, “the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans.” Sargent continues: “This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway.”

Morris himself puts it this way in Sargent’s report:

“If you’re going to make the case that this is a bipartisan scandal, you have to really stretch the imagination,” says Morris. “Most individual tribes were predominantly Democratic givers through the last decade. Only Abramoff’s clients switched dramatically from largely Democratic to overwhelmingly Republican donors, and that happened only after he got his hands on them.”

In other words, the idea, stated as fact in nearly every newspaper and TV report on the scandal, that Abramoff funneled money to Democrats through these tribes, is simply not true. So why would the press lie about it? Because the truth is not “balanced” enough. In the current media climate, it’s just not acceptable to tell the truth about this issue. Desperate to avoid accusations of partisan bias, mainstream news agencies find it preferable to tell a reassuringly bipartisan lie.

Of course, the Democratic Party isn’t a morally pure bastion of integrity. It’s pretty much impossible to get elected to congress without engaging in some influence-peddling and favor-trading. But to say that they share equal guilt, or really any guilt, in the Abramoff scandal is to tell a lie—a lie we are being told daily, and not just by the media figures we expect such lies from—the Limbaughs and O’Reillys—but by figures generally considered to be neutral, or even liberal by some—Katie Couric, Wolf Blitzer, the Washington Post, Time Magazine.

--snip--

[B Calm]

21. I agree, it's a good article!

[RedEarth]

25. That is good....here's the link to the American Prospect article/study

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924

[IdaBriggs]

24. Nope. None. He hates the Dems. nt